Kolkata Court June 2003 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
Sencose Food Products Private Limited Vs. Raj Kumar Sen and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-10-2003
Reported in: (2004)1CALLT79(HC)
S.K. Mukherjee, J.1. This is an application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against order No. 96 dated September 10, 2002 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), First Court at Sealdah in Title Suit No. 587 of 1982. By the order impugned the learned Civil Judge rejected an application filed by the defendant No. 6 under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure for its transposition as the plaintiff in the said Title Suit No. 587 of 1982.2. The opposite party No. 1 in this revisional application, namely, Rajkumar Sen, was the owner of the premises No. 237M, Maniktala Main Road, (presently known as Satin Sen Sarani), Police Station: Narkeldanga, Calcutta-700 054.3. Promodh Bhusan Chatterjee, since deceased, the predecessor-in-interest of the defendants, the opposite party Nos. 2 to 6 in this revisional application, was inducted as a lessee in respect of the suit premises for a period of 21 (twenty one) years commencing from October 1, 1961 and expiring with S...
Ramendranath Banerjee Vs. Pradip Kumar Sen
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-10-2003
Reported in: (2004)1CALLT151(HC)
S.K. Mukherjee, J.1. This is an application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India by the defendant/appellant challenging order No. 9 dated April 4, 2003 passed by Shri Amitabha Das, learned Additional District Judge, Second Court at Alipore, District: South 24 Parganas in title Appeal No. 162 of 2002.2. The plaintiff, who is the opposite party in this revisional application, instituted Title suit No. 59 of 1993 in the Court of the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), 4th Court at Alipore for ejectment, recovery of arrears of rent and damages. The said suit was filed inter alia, on the ground of reasonable requirement. The said suit was transferred to the Court of the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Second Court at Alipore and was renumbered as Title Suit No. 105 of 2001.3. By judgment and decree dated March 15, 2002 the learned trial judge decreed the suit on contest without, however, any order as to costs. The learned judge, inter alia, held that the plaintiff was ab...
Sigma Search Lights Ltd. Vs. Income Tax Officer
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-06-2003
Reported in: (2004)82TTJ(Kol.)956
assessment order under section 143(3) assessing officer made detailed inquires but same not noted on in a brief order An order may be brief or cryptic but it has been passed after conducting the proper enquiries into the facts stated in the return, such an order cannot be held erroneous inasmuch as prejudicial to the interest of the revenue for that reason alone.An order may be brief or cryptic but it has been passed after conducting the proper enquiries into the facts stated in the return, such an order cannot be held erroneous inasmuch as prejudicial to the interest of the revenue for that reason alone.The assessing officer sought for the details of business receipt/sales and the books of accounts, etc. There is no dispute also to the fact that the assessee furnished those details and also further details as called for by the assessing officer. The assessee also gave the details of the outstanding commission payable along with the addresses of the parties besides giving the details ...
Birla Tyres Vs. Joint Commissioner of Income Tax
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-06-2003
Reported in: (2004)267ITR1(Kol.)
1. This is an appeal filed by the assessee for the asst. yr. 1985-86 against the order passed by the CIT under Section 263 of the Act by which it was held that unabsorbed loss of the AOP should be apportioned amongst the members of the AOP.2. The assessee is an AOP (AOP) constituted by four members who are limited companies viz., M/s Century Textiles & Industries Ltd. M/s Kesoram Industries Ltd., M/s Jayashree Tea & Industries Ltd. and M/s Bharat General & Textiles Industries Ltd. The assessment was framed under Section 143(3) of the Act where the claim of loss of Rs. 25,51,31,859 was set off in the hands of AOP.3. Learned CIT, by passing an order dt. 31st March, 2000, held that according to Sections 67A and 167B(2) of the Act, the loss is not to be carried forward in the hands of AOP. Further, it was directed that such loss be apportioned amongst the members of AOP. Against the said finding, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal.4. Mr. Mitra, learned counsel appea...
Tapan Kumar Saha Vs. Income-tax Officer
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-03-2003
Reported in: (2004)89ITD225Cal
1. The assessee has filed this appeal against the order passed by the learned C.I.T.(Appeals) for the assessment year 1977-98.2. In this case, the office has pointed out the defect for shortage of appeal fee. The assessee has paid Rs. 1,500/- by challan at the time of filing the appeal. The learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the assessee has disputed the office note and he submitted to decide the issue of appel fee first as preliminary issue. According to the learned Counsel, filing of fee has been prescribed in Section 253(6) of the Act. According to the said provision fee would be levied according to the total income of the assessee as computed by the A.O. It was submitted that the appeal before the Tribunal is directed against the order passed by the C.I.T.(Appeals). Therefore, total income as computed by the A.O. should mean the revised income after giving effect to the order passed by the C.I.T.(Appeals) meaning thereby that the fee should be charged on the basis of the order...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- Next ›